La Fugitive

While bearing the stamp of a Lifetime movie, Fugitive at 17 is quite a few cuts above standard Lifetime fare. The story is not terribly original, but the writing, plotting and acting is a good deal more than you might expect. There are virtually none of the standard Lifetime tropes: sentimentality, amateurish performances and warm, upbeat, sappy smiles and chuckles exchanged among characters. The two leads are real actors. Marie Avgeropolous is a convincing and compelling performer with a focused intensity that is not overdone. Christina Cox's performance style is more reserved, but very professional and carefully crafted. We also get production values that exceed Lifetime's bland low-budget output. The pacing and well done suspense scenes in this movie should keep you away from the fast forward button.

Now THIS is a film to really get excited about on the Lifetime network. FUGITIVE AT 17 works extremely well as an action movie and as a thriller. The audience makes an immediate connection with Holly, our lead heroine played with fierce intensity by Marie Avgeropoulos. Once the inciting incident occurs as Holly is accused of her friend's drug murder, we're off and running on a roller coaster ride as she tries to evade her pursuers and find the truth. I was pleasantly surprised at how unpredictable and fun this film was. The smart writing and well done execution puts you right in the middle of all the action. The characters were developed well and the action keeps moving at a brisk pace. It definitely makes me want to see more in the "At 17" franchise.

Holly Hamilton (Marie Avgeropoulos) is an independent loner teen computer hacker who has a history with the cops. She has only one friend and her name is Blake. When they go to a bar to celebrate, Blake is lured away by a serial rapist. Holly goes in search of Blake and comes upon the rapist. He kills Blake and frames Holly for the crime.

This is a made-for-TV movie, and it looks like it. Luckily the story had a little bit of ambition which made it somewhat watchable. Marie Avgeropoulos is good looking and fairly physical. But she doesn't really have the facial expressions to do in-depth acting. The story has some tension, but the low budget just doesn't allow for big action. It's watchable, but forgettable.

Sorry to disagree with most other reviews. I thought the story line was very good and some of the actors did adequate jobs. Noteworthy the Grandmother, the female detective, Christina Cox, and the friend played by Cindel Chartrand. But the leading player, Marie Avger. . .., was over the top acting and seemed out of place opposite the other performers. Sort of high school acting when others played simplicity and believable characters. You had sympathy and compassion for them. This critic felt nothing for the leading role of Holly. She acted too much in the part. I always like to find something positive in actors and their work. But in this one, I gotta say I just didn't like her work. Maybe too old for a high school student and one look on her face throughout the movie. A blank sort of stare. Walking around so obviously conspicuously that it was funny. The scene in the restaurant where there were two cops, she walks out hunched over with this stupid hood over her face. So obvious. And continues walking everywhere with the hood over her head. I just thought she was wrong in the role as compared to the others. Sorry.

As it stands, it's a 5/10. Slightly better than most of you average afternoon TV-movie fare, but CERTAINLY NOT worth it's current 6.3 IMDb rating. I'll use Brian De Palma's "Passion" as a gauge there, as it's rated 5.3, and it's exemplary in terms of production quality and style compared to something like this. Far better acted and just strides better overall.

Right off the bat we see the television/budget shortcomings. Terrible opening sequence with awful, cheap credits, blurry stock, and the whole beginning rushed to-boot, in typical TV-movie fashion.

Then the film gains some steam with a promising start from the lead. Casper is also good as the villain here. As bad as the production values are, the film flows quite nicely, and the audience does feel for the lead character and her plight. BUT!

The acting still falls flat in many places and there are some serious plausibility issues both procedural and otherwise, and the film just ends and starts a bit TOO much like a TV movie. The middle third isn't bad at all, but don't expect much.

48/100 seen much worse. I knew the production values would be questionable but they were worse than I expected. The acting and the flow of the film were better than I expected, but I didn't expect much.

I'd pass. Not even worth the $1.32 rental at the redbox.

In hind-site, TV movies that are worth watching are rare... super rare.. and most that are worth watching were made by HBO films. Brian's Song, Long Gone(Stogies), Temple Grandin... Duel... there just aren't many GREAT TV movies.

Fugitive at 17 isn't terrible, but it did nothing to distance itself from being 'a decent television movie' at the very best. I mean that in the 'this is a basic cable movie, not a 'premium channel' movie' kind of way to boot. Again, pass.